GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Ulflund ( talk · contribs) 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this article. I'll go through it more carefully later on, but here are a few initial comments.
Ulflund ( talk) 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Equations are not well explained. See other comments. Done. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead does not summarize article fully. Photons and neutrinos should be mentioned. Clear definition should be given. Done. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Minor things to fix in reference list. Done. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The existence of other decoupling events are mentioned in the discussion, but not in the article. No answer to the question which these might be. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | There is only one image, but I cannot think of any other that would be appropriate. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
The format in reference list should be made more consistent. Here are a few things I think are wrong:
Ulflund ( talk) 23:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The equations seems to take focus away from the important factor for finding the time of decoupling, namely the electron density. I think these equations need to be reworked to be clearer and focus on the important things (probably by following the sources closer, but I haven't read them) or be removed. Since the recombination article gives a derivation for estimating the time of recombination, these estimates might not be needed here
Although I find things to correct I should say that I find the article overall to be well written. Good work HannahFord428. Ulflund ( talk) 04:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I cannot see how
can be correct when there is an abrupt reduction in the free-electron density. Ulflund ( talk) 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a small question. The "Recombination" is term, which often appear in reliable sources. And "Neutrino decoupling" is often appear too. But is there a "Decoupling"? What sources is includes Recombination and Neutrino decoupling to one term - "Decoupling"? In article there is : "occurred within one second of the Big Bang" and recombination is in "380,000 years after the Big Bang". Why we are merging this very different epochs? -- Рулин ( talk) 14:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Ulflund ( talk · contribs) 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this article. I'll go through it more carefully later on, but here are a few initial comments.
Ulflund ( talk) 20:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
![]() |
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | Equations are not well explained. See other comments. Done. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead does not summarize article fully. Photons and neutrinos should be mentioned. Clear definition should be given. Done. |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
![]() |
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Minor things to fix in reference list. Done. |
![]() |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The existence of other decoupling events are mentioned in the discussion, but not in the article. No answer to the question which these might be. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
![]() |
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | There is only one image, but I cannot think of any other that would be appropriate. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
The format in reference list should be made more consistent. Here are a few things I think are wrong:
Ulflund ( talk) 23:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
The equations seems to take focus away from the important factor for finding the time of decoupling, namely the electron density. I think these equations need to be reworked to be clearer and focus on the important things (probably by following the sources closer, but I haven't read them) or be removed. Since the recombination article gives a derivation for estimating the time of recombination, these estimates might not be needed here
Although I find things to correct I should say that I find the article overall to be well written. Good work HannahFord428. Ulflund ( talk) 04:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I cannot see how
can be correct when there is an abrupt reduction in the free-electron density. Ulflund ( talk) 15:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a small question. The "Recombination" is term, which often appear in reliable sources. And "Neutrino decoupling" is often appear too. But is there a "Decoupling"? What sources is includes Recombination and Neutrino decoupling to one term - "Decoupling"? In article there is : "occurred within one second of the Big Bang" and recombination is in "380,000 years after the Big Bang". Why we are merging this very different epochs? -- Рулин ( talk) 14:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)